Thanks for writing this! Iām trying to think through this as Iām writing it. Here are a bunch of not-too-well-formed ideas:
There might be āa lot more fundingā available soon (note: this is still TBC. I believe a lot of caution is warranted on that question)
This might result in a significant ālowering of the funding barā from funders.
In this case, it will attract many more people to:
work for EA and/āor AI safety projects
launch new initiatives.
As a community-builder, I tend to have a bias for people with deep engagement with EA principles. But I think many projects can be good with leaders who have not initially spent much time thinking about EA.
Iām not sure Iāve heard much criticism in mainstream discourse about how easily EA funding was granted during the pre-FTX funding. Itās not surprising, given the fact that most people donāt think much about it.
It would probably be much more discussed in some specific spheres: philanthropy in general, TPOT, non-EA spheres.
Most of all, I think funders (and all of us) should consider the impact this situational change could bring to EAās culture, epistemics, and appropriate trust levels in what might become (again) less of a community and more of a ānetworkā.
At this stage, I think I broadly
would avoid talking about āvulturesā as this seems insulting to both 1) vultures and 2) people who are rationally looking for funding opportunities
share your state of alarm about what this will do to EAās culture
still believe this could be immensely good
believe that the increase in funding will take some time and that we should invest a lot in grantmaking to maintain decent standards of scrutiny (as well as coordination mechanisms).
I see many good points in the comments of the original The Vultures Are Circling by CitizenTen that you refer to. Most of mine were somehow expressed there already^^
Hi GV. Thanks a lot for your comments. I believe you are mostly right, I just thought that some discretion would be advisable so we wonāt be attracting the wrong people, at least not in large numbers.
Yes, āwrong peopleā can mean a wide range of things. Maybe there is this āpioneer nostalgiaā at play when wanting to select only people with deep engagement with EA principles ā thanks for bringing that up. However, things can get much worse than just attracting people not very engaged. Even attracting people who will treat the whole thing as ājust another jobā may turn out ok. What really worries me is that you can have real scammers lured in by this ā37ā100 billion dollar billboardā.
Thanks for writing this! Iām trying to think through this as Iām writing it. Here are a bunch of not-too-well-formed ideas:
There might be āa lot more fundingā available soon (note: this is still TBC. I believe a lot of caution is warranted on that question)
This might result in a significant ālowering of the funding barā from funders.
In this case, it will attract many more people to:
work for EA and/āor AI safety projects
launch new initiatives.
As a community-builder, I tend to have a bias for people with deep engagement with EA principles. But I think many projects can be good with leaders who have not initially spent much time thinking about EA.
Iām not sure Iāve heard much criticism in mainstream discourse about how easily EA funding was granted during the pre-FTX funding. Itās not surprising, given the fact that most people donāt think much about it.
It would probably be much more discussed in some specific spheres: philanthropy in general, TPOT, non-EA spheres.
Most of all, I think funders (and all of us) should consider the impact this situational change could bring to EAās culture, epistemics, and appropriate trust levels in what might become (again) less of a community and more of a ānetworkā.
At this stage, I think I broadly
would avoid talking about āvulturesā as this seems insulting to both 1) vultures and 2) people who are rationally looking for funding opportunities
share your state of alarm about what this will do to EAās culture
still believe this could be immensely good
believe that the increase in funding will take some time and that we should invest a lot in grantmaking to maintain decent standards of scrutiny (as well as coordination mechanisms).
I see many good points in the comments of the original The Vultures Are Circling by CitizenTen that you refer to. Most of mine were somehow expressed there already^^
Hi GV. Thanks a lot for your comments. I believe you are mostly right, I just thought that some discretion would be advisable so we wonāt be attracting the wrong people, at least not in large numbers.
Yes, āwrong peopleā can mean a wide range of things. Maybe there is this āpioneer nostalgiaā at play when wanting to select only people with deep engagement with EA principles ā thanks for bringing that up. However, things can get much worse than just attracting people not very engaged. Even attracting people who will treat the whole thing as ājust another jobā may turn out ok. What really worries me is that you can have real scammers lured in by this ā37ā100 billion dollar billboardā.